Slate magazine on Sunday published “If You Want to Live Here, You Need to Live by the Rules Here,” a 5,000-plus word exposition of the Muslim migrant rape case in Twin Falls, Idaho. Author Michelle Goldberg subtitles her piece: “A sexual assault case involving refugee children in Idaho. A microcosm of America in the age of Trump.” That tells you all you need to know: Goldberg and Slate are using this case to demonize opposition to the Democrats’ suicidal policies regarding Muslim migrants.

Goldberg doesn’t care about the five-year-old rape victim in Twin Falls in the slightest degree. In fact, throughout her lengthy piece and in texts with the victim’s mother, she puts this little girl and her family on trial.

Goldberg’s agenda is further exposed by the fact that throughout her wordy article, she doesn’t deign to include a full description of the attack itself. The closest Golberg comes to this is her account of the victim’s mother’s brief description of the video that the attackers took while they were raping the girl: “Her fiancé, she said, told her it showed oral sex as well as their daughter being urinated on.” But Goldberg follows this with prosecuting attorney Grant Loebs waxing “indignant at all the misrepresentations still swirling around about the case. ‘I’m a lifelong conservative Republican, and the behavior of the right-wing alternative press on this is atrocious.’” Loebs’ own dishonesty I have shown in a previous article.

The full exchange between Goldberg and the victim’s mother, whom Goldberg calls “Lori,” reveals how manipulative and deceitful Goldberg is. In text messages since shared with me, Goldberg appears determined to make the rape charge out to be some kind of cynical money-making scheme, questioning Lori about the GoFundMe page that was set up for the family — as if the family was claiming their daughter was raped by Muslim migrants only to make money. Goldberg presses Lori about the one-day suspension of the GoFundMe page in the wake of false charges that the rape claim was a “hoax” – was Goldberg hoping to expose the whole thing as a “hoax” as well?

In reality, the family is desperately poor and have not yet been able to move out of their apartment, where they have been living right next door to the rape suspect. Without any resources or powerful allies, they are going up against the well-greased leftist/Islamic machine in the media, law enforcement, refugee resettlement programs, and more.

In her text exchange, Goldberg repeatedly tries to manipulate Lori into reflecting Goldberg’s point of view. She disputes Lori’s account of what happening, at one point asking, “Wait, I thought there was no rape?” Lori has to remind her (spelling as in original): “Forced oral sex is a rape mam.”

Meanwhile, the victim’s mother told me this: “This is what my daughter has told me: that they grabbed her at knifepoint and forced her into the laundry room and told her that if she tried to leave, they would kill her. The seven-year-old boy took her clothes off. She tells me he put his private in her mouth and peed in her mouth, and put it in her private, and then peed all over her. And she said they recorded her, too… She also told the emergency room CARES doctor that they had a knife as well, and they found on her neck a cut. Then the day after, they claimed it was a scratch, when in fact it looked like a cut.”

Lori’s fiancée told me what he saw on the video: “I watched the 8-year-old boy push my daughter up against a wall and pull her pants down and his pants down; he then attempted to penetrate her from behind. She was able to run away and crouch in a corner shaking in fear while the boy danced around naked laughing at her. I stopped watching after that.”

How is it that Goldberg found these facts unremarkable, too insignificant to report?

Goldberg repeatedly asks Lori manipulative questions designed to depict Lori as having an anti-refugee agenda: “I’m just asking if you agree with those who want to make it a story about refugees, or if they’re taking advantage of your family’s tragedy.” “Are they not being charged because they’re refugees, or because they are minors?” “Did you worry about having people from the Middle East in your complex before, or only since this happened?”

Then in her article, Goldberg compares Cambodian refugees of the 1980s to what’s happening now. But this is a whole other thing: no previous group of refugees or immigrants has had a holy book that sanctions the sexual enslavement of non-believing women (cf. Quran 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50, 70:30). Goldberg does not, of course, discuss that. Instead, she writes: “At first glance, it might seem like an odd idea to bring traumatized foreigners to a remote, conservative American farming town.” But don’t worry: Michelle Goldberg will convince you otherwise.

Goldberg quotes Zeze Rwasama, whom she identifies as “the director of the CSI Refugee Center and a Congolese refugee himself,” saying: “The integration process happens faster than in big cities,” he said. “In small towns like this, everyone knows everyone. People are approachable.” Yeah, and rape-able, with a political and media machine ready to come to the aid of the rapist.

Further tilting the playing field, Goldberg writes: “Refugee advocates insist that the vast majority of Twin Falls citizens support the newcomers.” Who are these “advocates”? Has there been a vote, a referendum?

Zeroing in on her agenda, Goldberg also says: “This mounting demonization of refugees in Twin Falls has coincided, of course, with the rise of Donald Trump.” Of course, blame Trump. The fact is, this is not a which-came-first, the chicken or the egg thing. Anti-jihad and anti-sharia sentiment led to the rise of Trump, not the other way around. But Goldberg relentlessly pushes her agenda, looking for witnesses who call members of the counter-jihad group ACT “pure racists.” It’s plain slander.

Who is really looking to exploit the story here?

Goldberg is intent on demonizing even the victim’s mother. She quotes her as saying, “Maybe it’s what they do in their country, I don’t know. But I do know that the kids in that country can and are used as sex slaves.” Goldberg pulled that quote out of context, luring Lori into answering this way by asking her why the boy who videotaped the rape showed the video to her fiancée. Goldberg doesn’t quote another statement Lori texted to her: “I do believe there are good refugees that come here to live to get away from the horrible places they’re at.” Goldberg can’t show Lori saying there are good refugees; it wouldn’t fit her narrative. How low can Slate go? To pursue its pro-migrant agenda, Michelle Goldberg is demonizing and vilifying the family of a five-year-old rape victim.

Also, Goldberg tries to paint “Lori” as some kind of a nut. While leaving out statements that would make her sympathetic, Goldberg makes sure to include Lori’s saying she has not been well, as if to imply that she is unbalanced, and her story false.

The media is going to extraordinary lengths to kill this story, going so far as to target the family for character assassination. We cannot allow them to do so. The leftist migrant agenda be damned: this poor little girl must have justice.